UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
STACKS 


. 


Reprinted  from  The  Biblical  World,  Vol.  XXXVI,  No.  5,  November,  1910 


-/  ‘h 


T:\ 


4  H 


THE  HEBREW  AND  THE  GREEK 

IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


EDWARD  CHAUNCEY  BALDWIN 


PRINTED  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  I’RESS 


THE  HEBREW  AND  THE  GREEK  IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


EDWARD  CHAUNCEY  BALDWIN,  PH.D. 
Urbana,  Ill. 


Matthew  Arnold’s  famous  distinction  between  “Hebraism  and 
Hellenism”  is  misleading,  and  rests  upon  a  fundamental  miscon¬ 
ception  of  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  Hebrews.  In  Culture  and 
Anarchy  he  discusses  what  he  calls  the  “two  points  of  influence” 
between  which  “moves  our  world.”  These  he  calls  the  forces  of 
Hebraism  and  Hedenism,  the  one  representing  the  effort  to  win 
peace  by  self-conquest,  a  moral  impulse;  the  other,  the  effort  to 
see  things  as  they  really  are,  an  intellectual  impulse.  The  essen¬ 
tial  difference  between  Elebraism  and  Hellenism,  as  Arnold  dis¬ 
tinguishes  them,  is  that  “Hebraism  has  always  been  severely  pre¬ 
occupied  with  an  awful  sense  of  the  impossibility  of  being  at  ease 
in  Zion.”  All  through  the  essay  he  implies  that  the  Hebrew  spirit 
was  one  of  somber  gloom,  in  contrast  to  the  joyous  spontaneity 
that  he  attributes  to  the  Greek. 

Now  such  a  distinction  as  this,  in  order  to  be  valid,  must  be 
based  upon  conclusions  drawn  from  a  comparative  examination 
of  the  literatures  of  the  two  peoples,  for  literature  is  the  only 
authentic  record  of  the  life  of  a  race.  Such  a  comparative  exam¬ 
ination  of  Hebrew  literature  with  that  of  Hellas  clearly  demon¬ 
strates  that  the  spirit  of  Hebraism,  at  least  before  it  narrowed 
into  Judaism,  was  in  no  sense  the  antithesis  of  that  of  Hellenism. 

In  the  attempt  to  test  the  validity  of  Arnold’s  distinction,  it 
was  found  advisable  to  iimit  the  investigation  to  a  comparison  of 
the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  spirit  as  shown  in  the  habitual  attitude 
of  mind  of  the  two  peoples  toward  life,  toward  inanimate  nature, 
and  toward  the  Supreme  Being.  Obviously  it  will  hardly  be 
possible,  within  the  limits  of  such  an  article  as  this,  to  do  more 
than  state  the  results  of  the  investigation  without  giving  in  detail 
the  process  by  which  the  conclusions  were  reached. 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


335 


Upon  a  comparison  of  the  Greek  with  the  Hebrew  attitude 
toward  life,  it  was  found  that  the  Greeks,  in  contrast  to  the  Hebrews, 
were  not  a  particularly  hopeful  people.  This  statement  does  not 
refer  to  their  belief  in  a  future  life,  but  merely  to  their  attitude 
toward  what  the  future  had  in  store  for  them  here  on  the, earth. 
Their  sense  of  man’s  helplessness  in  the  hands  of  a  mysterious 
fate  accounts  in  part  for  the  peculiar  way  in  which  the  Greek 
authors  speak  of  hope.  They  nearly  always  speak  of  it  as  a  delu¬ 
sive  phantom — an  illusion  born  of  an  uncertain  future.  Thus 
Theognis  (637-38)  speaks  of  Hope  and  Peril  as  deities  closely 
associated,  equally  dangerous  to  men.  To  the  Greek,  hopes 
were,  as  Pindar  is  said  to  have  called  them,  “the  dreams  of  wak¬ 
ing  men.”  To  the  Greek,  hope  might  be  “the  poor  man’s  wealth,” 
but  while  it  thus  might  become  the  consolation  of  the  weak,  it 
could  not  be  a  source  of  additional  strength  to  the  strong. 

Such  a  prevalent  distrust  of  the  future  is  clearly  reflected  in 
Greek  history.  Among  Greek  historians  of  the  classical  age  there 
is  absolutely  no  trace  of  the  idea  that  the  human  race  as  a  whole, 
or  any  single  nation,  is  progressing  toward  the  fulfilment  of  a 
divinely  ordered  destiny.  Herodotus’  history,  for  example,  seems 
as  if  written  to  illustrate  the  insecurity  of  mortal  happiness. 
Throughout  the  history  it  is  in  the  hour  of  men’s  impious  triumph, 
when  they  seem  most  secure  in  the  possession  of  life  and  happiness, 
that  Fate  brings  them  to  misery,  or  slits  the  thin-spun  life.  To 
the  Greek  the  future  was  full  of  dire  possibilities — poverty,  exile, 
sickness,  death.  In  the  face  of  such  uncertainties,  the  virtue 
of  the  Greek  was  resignation  rather  than  hope — a  calm  acceptance 
of  the  will  of  the  gods,  without  any  joyful  anticipations.  Conse¬ 
quently,  though  often,  and  perhaps  usually,  a  man  of  cheerful 
yesterdays,  he  was  never  a  man  of  confident  tomorrows.  In  the 
absence  of  hope  for  the  future  the  Greeks  turned  for  inspiration 
mainly  to  the  past,  to  the  mythical  heroes  of  song  and  legend, 
and  to  the  deeds  of  their  ancestors  in  the  far-off  Golden  Age. 

Like  the  Greeks,  the  Hebrews  also  looked  backward  to  a  Golden 
Age  when  God  had  walked  and  talked  with  men,  when  men  and 
animals  had  lived  at  peace.  So  well  had  men  understood  their 
poor  relations,  the  animals,  in  that  far-off  time  that  they  had 


336 


THE  BIBLICAL  WORLD 


\ 


held  converse  with  the  beasts  of  the  field,  even  with  the  serpent, 
the  lowest,  albeit  the  subtlest  of  them  all.  But,  unlike  the  Greeks, 
the  Hebrews  looked  not  only  backward  but  forward  to  a  Golden 
Age.  They  were  the  only  people  of  antiquity  who  conceived  of 
a  Golden  Age  as  the  beginning  and  end  of  human  history.  This 
future  Golden  Age  was  to  be  no  less  ideal,  though  less  primitive, 
than  the  first  had  been.  Apparently  it  was  not  thought  of  in  a 
uniform  way  in  any  age,  nor  always  consistently  by  the  same 
writers,  yet  they  all  agree  in  describing  its  beginning.  It  was  to 
be  introduced  by  the  advent  of  Jehovah  himself  (Isa.  40:9-12; 
52:7-12)  or  of  the  Messiah  (Isa.  9:9-10).  The  conditions  of  the 
new  era  are  variously  described,  sometimes  in  language  that 
implies  no  more  than  the  establishment  of  redeemed  Israel  in  the 
first  place  among  the  nations  (Jer.  33:17-22;  Ezek.  37:25);  at 
other  times  in  words  that  suggest  that  they  looked  forward  to  a 
change  in  Nature  itself,  and  the  creation  of  a  new  earth  (Dan. 
2:44;  7:14  and  27).  Often  they  spoke  of  it  as  a  time  when 
the  happiness  of  Eden  would  be  restored.  Men  will  be  exempt 
from  the  ills  that  flesh  is  heir  to,  “the  inhabitant  shall  not  say  I 
am  sick.”  The  harmony  between  men  and  their  surroundings 
will  be  of  a  kind  to  reproduce  the  conditions  suitable  to  long  life 
such  as  the  patriarchs  enjoyed.  So  much  will  longevity  be  the 
rule  that  one  dying  a  hundred  years  old  will  be  thought  to  have 
met  an  untimely  end  (Isa.  65:20).  Once  more  in  that  future 
time  will  there  be  a  truce  of  God,  when  the  wolf  and  the  lamb 
shall  feed  together,  and  the  lion  eat  straw  like  the  bullock,  when 
they  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  God’s  holy  mountain. 

The  degree  to  which  this  hope  affected  the  Hebrews’  political 
outlook  is  hard  to  overestimate.  It  sustained  them  even  during 
the  long  exile,  when  the  scepter  seemed  forever  to  have  departed 
from  Judah.  It  comforted  them  while  they  groaned  under  the 
oppression  of  the  Greek,  and  the  yet  more  galling  yoke  of  Roman 
domination,  for  to  them,  they  believed,  Jehovah  had  pledged  his 
word  that  a  blessed  future  was  in  store  for  the  nation,  and  had 
added,  “I  the  Lord  will  hasten  it  in  his  time.”  Nothing  can  be 
more  striking  than  the  contrast  between  the  political  pessimism 
of  Plato,  for  example,  and  the  exultant  optimism  of  some  of  the 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


337 


prophets.  Such  a  difference  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  any 
superiority  over  the  Greeks  in  point  of  continued -national  pros¬ 
perity.  Indeed,  what  difference  there  was  in  this  respect  was 
all  in  favor  of  the  Greeks.  No  people  ancient  or  modern  ever 
had  more  to  dishearten  them  in  their  thought  of  their  national 
future  than  had  the  Hebrews;  and  yet  no  people  looked  forward 
so  exultantly. 

The  exultation  with  which  the  Hebrews  thought  of  their  polit¬ 
ical  future  was  the  logical  result  of  their  conception  of  God’s  rela¬ 
tion  with  them.  The  nation  had  been  rebellious  and  had  sinned; 
therefore  God  as  a  God  of  righteousness  must  punish  them. 
Hence  arose  the  idea  first  expressed  by  the  prophets  of  the  eighth 
century,  that  the  fall  of  the  nation  Israel  was  to  be  the  triumph 
of  their  God — the  victory  of  righteousness  over  sin.  When  the 
Hebrews  in  the  course  of  their  spiritual  development  finally  attained 
to  this  conception  of  their  political  history,  their  religion  broke 
for  the  first  time  through  the  bonds  of  nationality  and  became 
a  universal  religion,  instead  of  the  religion  of  a  single  people.  In  the 
second  chapter  of  Isaiah  and  in  Jeremiah  this  conception  of  Israel’s 
as  a  world-religion  found  complete  expression.  In  their  thought 
the  kingdoms  of  the  world  are  destined  to  become  the  kingdom  of 
Jehovah;  and  in  this  destiny  they  saw  the  final  aim  as  well  as  the 
crowning  glory  of  Israel’s  mission.  That  Jehovah’s  house  should 
be  called  “the  house  of  prayer  unto  all  nations”  was  to  be  the  con¬ 
summation  of  God’s  purpose  toward  which  he  was  directing  human 
history.  This  purpose  was  to  be  attained  by  Israel’s  becoming 
perfect  through  suffering,  and  hence  fit  to  be  the  evangelist  of  the 
world. 

Nor  does  the  political  hopefulness  of  the  Hebrew  in  contrast  to 
the  lack  of  it  in  the  Greek,  appear  alone  in  his  vision  of  a  future 
glory  for  the  nation  at  large.  It  is  evidenced  also  in  the  difference 
between  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  ideal  of  citizenship.  The 
Greek  ideal  of  the  rcaXos  rca^aOos  was  an  aristocratic  one.  It 
could  be  approached  only  by  the  favored  few,  by  the  wise,  the  noble, 
and  the  strong.  It  was  wholly  unattainable  by  the  ignorant,  the 
fallen,  the  feeble  of  the  earth.  Such  an  ideal  tended  persistently 
toward  the  intensification  of  existing  inequalities.  The  Hebrew 


33§ 


THE  BIBLICAL  WORLD 


prophets,  on  the  other  hand,  filled  with  the  hope  of  seeing  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  world  a  reign  of  universal  justice,  were  impatient  of 
social  inequalities.  Their  ideal  of  citizenship  was  one  that  could 
be  attained  by  the  poor  and  the  oppressed,  for  it  required  only  to 
do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  God. 

So  far  as  the  attitude  of  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  toward  life 
present  and  future  here  on  the  earth  can  be  determined,  it  would 
appear  that  the  latter  was  “more  at  ease  in  Zion,”  to  employ 
Arnold’s  phrase,  than  was  the  former;  and  that  he  was  so  because 
his  political  outlook  for  the  nation  and  for  the  individual  was  a 
more  hopeful  one. 

The  Greek  was  not  only  less  hopeful,  but  less  appreciative  of 
natural  beauty  than  the  Hebrew.  At  least  his  appreciation  of 
natural  beauty  was  less  catholic.  Within  certain  well-defined 
limits,  the  Greek  enjoyment  of  Nature  was  intense;  outside  those 
limits,  Nature  was  to  him  an  object  of  distrust.  She  then  became 
Calypso  the  concealer,  and  Circe  the  sorceress.  Nature  to  the 
Greek,  as  Mr.  Mabie  has  pointed  out  in  speaking  of  Nature  in 
Greek  and  mediaeval  thought,  emphasized  her  beauty,  and  kept 
her  terrors  in  the  background.  But  the  fact  that  the  vast  and 
awful  forces  of  Nature  were  kept  in  the  background,  while  the 
emphasis  was  put  persistently  upon  the  benignant  aspects  of  Nature 
resulted  in  a  limitation  of  the  range  of  the  Greek’s  appreciation. 
As  a  result,  only  the  cultivated  landscape  appealed  to  him  as  beauti¬ 
ful.  Only  once  in  all  classical  Greek  literature  (in  the  Critias  of 
Plato)  are  mountains  spoken  of  explicitly  as  possessing  beauty. 
Ruskin  in  Modern  Painters  has  noted  the  fact  that  every  Homeric 
landscape  intended  to  be  beautiful  is  composed  of  a  fountain,  a 
meadow,  and  a  grove.  Rivers  are  sometimes  in  Greek  literature 
spoken  of  as  beautiful;  but  the  adjective  was  applied  only  to  gently 
flowing  streams,  which  were  looked  upon  as  distributers  of  fertility. 
Turbulent  rivers  had  for  the  Greek  no  beauty;  to  him  they  sug¬ 
gested  only  anger  and  strength.  Thus  we  find  Homer  using  the 
ravages  of  a  swollen  river  as  a  simile  for  destructive  force.  Some¬ 
what  so  it  was  with  the  Greek  feeling  for  the  sea.  The  majesty 
and  loveliness  of  the  sea,  the  Greek  delighted  to  portray;  but  its 
somber  moods  frightened  him.  It  was  his  fear  that  caused  him 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


339 


to  adopt  the  principle  of  euphemism.  The  Black  Sea,  for  instance, 
the  Greeks  had  called  6  i roWo?  afe^o?  (the  inhospitable  sea)  from 
the  supposed  terrors  of  its  navigation,  but  later  they  altered  the 
name  to  o  ttovtos  evi^eivos  (the  hospitable  sea),  not  because  they 
feared  it  less  than  formerly,  but  because  they  wished  to  avoid  using 
words  of  evil  omen. 

Of  all  natural  objects,  it  was  with  trees  alone  that  the  Greeks 
felt  a  sympathy  that  was  almost  human,  and  that  knew  no  limita¬ 
tions.  They  shared  with  other  primitive  peoples — the  Egyptians, 
the  Hindus,  the  Persians,  the  Scandinavians — the  belief  that  in 
trees  there  existed  a  mysterious  life.  All  the  ancient  peoples 
about  whose  mythology  we  know  anything  believed  in  a  tree  of 
life,  that  is  in  a  plant  or  tree  whose  fruit  partaken  of  in  a  purely 
physical  way  was  able  to  bestow  immortality.  Such  in  Greek 
mythology  were  the  apples  of  the  Hesperides.  They  grew  on  an 
island  of  the  ocean  whither  no  ship  could  penetrate,  in  the  orchards 
of  the  Hesperian  Fields.  Earth  gave  them  to  Juno  upon  her  mar¬ 
riage  to  Jove;  and  whoever  ate  of  them  attained  eternal  youth. 

The  Hebrew  feeling  for  Nature  was  as  intense  as  that  of  the 
Greek,  and  was  far  more  inclusive.  Not  limited  to  an  enjoyment 
of  the  mild  aspects  of  Nature,  it  included  such  scenes  as  in  the  Greek 
inspired  only  fear.  The  greater  catholicity  of  the  Hebrew  appre¬ 
ciation  of  Nature  was  due  to  a  fundamental  difference  in  the  way 
the  two  peoples  thought  of  Nature  in  relation  to  God.  To  both  the 
Greek  and  the  Hebrew  Nature  was  divine.  They  differed  only  in 
their  understanding  of  the  relation  between  the  material  and  the 
spiritual.  The  Greek,  keenly  susceptible  to  natural  beauty  within 
limits  already  indicated,  thought  of  Nature  as  the  elemental  reality, 
the  soul  of  whose  beauty  was  embodied  in  the  divinities  who  haunted 
it.  The  thought  of  the  gods  was,  then,  the  artistic  completion  of 
his  thought  of  Nature. 

Quite  different  was  the  Hebrew  view  of  the  relation  of  Nature 
to  God.  To  the  Hebrew  God  was  the  primary  reality;  Nature 
was  secondary.  Not  only  was  it  true  that  without  him  was  not 
anything  made  that  was  made,  but  the  continued  existence  of 
Nature  was  dependent  on  his  will.  The  Hebrew  thought  of  Nature 
as  a  mere  shadow,  finding  the  essence  of  its  beauty  as  well  as  the 


340 


THE  BIBLICAL  WORLD 


sustaining  power  of  its  life  in  One  whose  providential  care  watched 
over  the  great  things  and  the  small — who  brought  forth  Mazzaroth 
in  his  season  and  provided  for  the  raven  his  food. 

^  It  is  characteristic  of  Hebrew  poetry  (Humboldt  said  in  his  Cosmos )  that 
as  a  reflex  of  monotheism,  it  always  embraces  the  whole  world  in  its  unity, 
comprehending  the  life  of  the  terrestrial  globe  as  well  as  the  shining  regions 
of  space.  It  dwells  less  on  details  of  phenomena,  and  loves  to  contemplate 
great  masses.  Nature  is  portrayed,  not  as  self-subsisting,  or  glorious  in  her 
own  beauty,  but  ever  in  relation  to  a  higher,  an  over-ruling,  a  spiritual  power. 
The  Hebrew  bard  ever  sees  in  her  the  living  expression  of  the  omnipresence 
of  God  in  the  works  of  the  visible  creation. 

Because  of  this,  we  find  in  the  Old  Testament  no  landscape 
descriptions  as  such.  There  is  no  description  of  the  sunrise;  no 
picture  of  the  sea.  Only  when  we  consider  the  wealth  of  poetic 
material  strewn  among  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  used 
by  the  Hebrew  poets  simply  in  the  way  of  allusion  and  incidental 
illustration,  can  we  realize  how  deep  and  inclusive  their  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  natural  beauty  really  was,  considered  as  a  revelation  of  the 
divine.  Though  there  is  no  description  of  the  sunrise,  can  one 
doubt  the  delight  of  the  poet  when  he  compares  it  to  “a  bridegroom 
coming  out  of  his  chamber,”  and  to  a  strong  man  rejoicing  to  run 
a  race  ?  Nor  can  we  question  that  of  the  author  of  the  comparison 
of  the  just  ruler,  who  “shall  be”  he  says,  “as  the  light  of  the  morn¬ 
ing  when  the  sun  ariseth,  even  as  a  morning  without  clouds;  as  the 
tender  grass  springing  out  of  the  earth  in  the  clear  shining  after 
rain.”  And  though  there  is  no  picture  of  the  sea,  the  passing  image : 
“The  wicked  are  like  the  troubled  sea,  when  it  cannot  rest,  whose 
waters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt.  There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God, 
to  the  wicked”  is,  as  Carlyle  would  say,  significant  of  much.  The 
sea  had  no  terrors  for  the  Hebrew,  for  he  believed  implicitly  that 
“the  sea  is  his,  and  he  made  it”  (Ps.  95:5),  and  that  “the  deep  also 
obeys  God”  (Ps.  94:7).  Nay,  even  the  roar  of  its  voice  was  to  the 
Hebrew  not  the  sound  of  anger,  but  of  acclamation.  There  is  in 
Greek  mythology  no  such  sublime  personification  of  the  sea  as  that 
in  the  third  chapter  of  Habakkuk,  where  describing  the  accom¬ 
paniments  of  the  theophany,  the  prophet  describes  the  sea  as  utter¬ 
ing  his  voice  and  lifting  up  his  hands  on  high.  In  that  single  state¬ 
ment  we  have  a  wealth  of  poetic  suggestion  that  makes  the  Greek 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


341 


mythology  seem  by  comparison  petty.  Aphrodite  “born  in  the 
foam  of  the  sea,”  and  Thetis  with  her  “  tinsel-slippered  feet”  can¬ 
not  for  a  moment  compare  in  sublimity  with  this  image  of  the  sea, 
greeting  with  an  inarticulate  Te  Deum  the  Creator  coming  to  judge 
the  earth;  and  lifting  before  Him  in  adoration  the  white  hands  of 
its  foam-capped  waves.  Nor  were  the  Hebrews  less  susceptible  than 
the  Greeks  to  the  beauty  of  the  trees.  The  cedars  that  waved  on 
Lebanon  were  not  less  but  more  beautiful  in  their  eyes  for  being 
“the  cedars  which  he  hath  planted”  (Ps.  104:16).  The  growth  of 
the  tree  became  to  them  the  symbol  of  spiritual  growth:  “The 
righteous  shall  grow  like  a  cedar  in  Lebanon”  (Ps.  92:12)  and 
“shall  be  like  a  tree  planted  by  the  rivers  of  waters”  (Ps.  1  :i).  So 
great  was  their  regard  for  trees  that  by  the  provisions  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  they  were  forbidden  to  cut  them  down  even  in  an 
enemy’s  country,  “for  the  tree  of  the  field  is  man’s  life”  (Deut. 
20:19). 

The  Hebrew  never  considered  natural  objects  as  beautiful  in 
and  for  themselves,  but  as  beautiful  or  majestic  symbols  of  God. 
Though  this  way  of  looking  at  them  may  seem  to  imply  a  limitation 
of  his  appreciation  of  natural  beauty,  it  really  increased  it  by  render¬ 
ing  visible  the  spiritual  significance  of  things  which  to  the  Greek 
had  excited  fear,  or  at  most  had  aroused  but  a  languid  interest. 
Thus  the  mountains  round  about  Jerusalem  came  to  symbolize 
God’s  protecting  care  for  his  people;  and  the  fact  of  their  being 
such  a  symbol  emphasized  their  beauty.  The  rushing  river,  which 
to  the  Greek  suggested  only  destructive  force,  became  to  the  Hebrew 
a  symbol  of  the  coming  of  Jehovah  to  punish  the  wicked  and  to 
save  his  people.  “He  shall  come  as  a  rushing  stream  which  the 
breath  of  Jehovah  driveth”  (Isa.  59:19). 

More  inclusive  and  more  spiritual  than  the  feeling  of  the  Greek 
for  Nature  was  that  of  the  Hebrew.  To  him  all  nature  was,  as  it 
were,  the  garment  of  God,  hiding  and  yet  revealing  his  personal 
presence.  Or  it  was  a  symphony  of  praise  filling  the  earth,  as  on 
solemn  feast-days  the  music  of  Israel’s  Te  Deums  filled  the  Temple 
courts.  With  such  a  conception  of  Nature,  the  Hebrew  felt  a  secur¬ 
ity  in  her  more  awful  manifestations  which  the  Greek  could  not 
have  known. 


342 


THE  BIBLICAL  WORLD 


The  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  thought  of  God  was  closely  allied 
to  their  thought  of  Nature.  Indeed,  their  thought  of  Nature  was 
part  of  their  thought  of  God.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  Hebrew 
looked  upon  the  earth  as  a  temple  filled  with  the  harmony  of  a 
mighty  orchestra  whose  music  was  the  gladness  of  the  world.  “In 
his  temple  every  thing  saith  glory,”  sang  the  Hebrew  poet  (Ps. 
29:9).  The  Greek  conception  of  Nature  was  also  closely  connected 
with  his  worship.  But,  unlike  that  of  the  Hebrew,  his  worship 
was  tinged  with  distrust.  For  his  lack  of  confidence  in  the  deity 
there  was  abundant  justification.  The  most  reliable  authority 
from  which  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  Greek  theological  beliefs  is 
Homer.  He,  with  Hesiod,  was  regarded  by  the  Greeks  themselves 
as  the  founder  of  the  national  religion.  It  is  to  Homer,  then,  that 
we  must  turn  for  authentic  information  about  early  Greek  theologi¬ 
cal  beliefs.  Here  we  find  that  the  nature  of  the  gods  was  far  from 
being  such  as  to  inspire  implicit  confidence.  Though  immortal, 
they  are  not  omnipotent.  There  was  a  point  beyond  which  they 
could  not  give  to  man  the  help  he  needed.  For  every  man’s  destiny 
was  controlled  by  a  fate  to  which  even  the  gods  were  subject,  and 
which  neither  men  nor  gods  could  alter.  Moreover,  the  gods  were 
thought  to  be  to  a  certain  extent  capricious.  To  secure  and  retain 
their  favor  men  could  not  afford  to  neglect  them,  but  must  observe 
the  omens  by  which  they  were  thought  to  make  known  their  wishes. 
Above  all,  man  should  be  reverent,  and  religiously  practice  moder¬ 
ation  in  his  conduct  and  in  his  thoughts.  Otherwise  the  gods  might 
easily  become  offended  or  jealous,  and  withdraw  their  favor.  Nor 
were  the  gods  indissolubly  connected  with  the  moral  order  of  the 
world.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  punishment  of  crime, 
both  in  this  world  and  the  next,  was  committed  to  the  Furies,  or 
Erinnyes.  Such  gods  with  their  limitations,  their  caprices,  and 
their  deviations  from  moral  rectitude,  could  never  have  fully  satis¬ 
fied  the  deeper  needs  of  the  human  spirit,  nor  ever  have  exercised 
any  strong  moral  influence.  That  they  were  found  inadequate  is 
proved  by  the  changes  that  Greek  theology  underwent  in  the  sixth 
century  B.C.  when  Greek  religion  became  more  monotheistic,  and 
when  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles  by  their  criticism  of  existing  beliefs 


HEBREW  AND  GREEK  IDEAS  OF  LIFE 


343 


voiced  the  new  spirit  of  rationalism.  Yet,  in  spite  of  the  rise  in 
Greece  of  the  rationalistic,  and  even  of  the  philosophic  spirit,  the 
Greeks  never  attained  to  a  complete  realization  of  a  god  who 
“  ruleth  by  his  power  forever;  his  eyes  behold  the  nations’!  (Ps.  66  7) ; 
whose  “ faithfulness  is  unto  all  generations”  (Ps.  119:90);  who,  as 
the  Judge  of  all.  the  earth,  cannot  but  do  right  (Gen.  18:25). 

In  the  universal  presence  of  the  deity  both  the  Greek  and  the 
Hebrew  implicitly  believed.  The  conception  of  an  absentee  God, 
ruling  the  world  by  a  cunningly  devised  system  of  interferences  it 
was  left  for  later  theologians  to  formulate.  Both  peoples  believed 
heartily  in  what  has  since  been  called  the  immanence  of  God,  but 
the  accompaniments  of  this  belief  were  in  the  case  of  the  two  peo¬ 
ples  somewhat  different.  Plutarch  in  the  Morals  wrote: 

Polycrates  was  formidable  at  Samos,  and  so  was  Periander  at  Corinth; 
but  no  man  ever  feared  either  of  them  that  had  escaped  to  an  equal  and  free 
government.  But  he  that  dreads  the  divine  government  ....  Whither 
can  he  remove  ?  Whither  can  he  fly  ?  What  land,  what  sea  can  he  find  where 
God  is  not  ? 

Similarly,  and  yet  in  how  different  a  spirit,  the  Hebrew  poet 
sings : 

Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  spirit, 

Or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ? 

If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning, 

And  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea; 

Even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me, 

And  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me. 

Ps.  139:7-9. 

The  difference  is  due  to  the  greater  confidence  the  Hebrew  poet  felt 
in  the  presence  of  the  deity,  a  confidence  due  to  his  exultant  belief 
that  he  could  not  escape  Jehovah’s  loving  care. 

Certain  correspondences  and  differences  have  been  pointed  out 
between  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew  attitude  toward  life,  and  toward 
Nature;  and  an  explanation  for  these  differences  has  been  sought 
in  the  fundamental  theological  conceptions  of  the  two  peoples.  In 
conclusion  it  may  be  said  in  justice  to  Arnold  that  though  his  dis¬ 
tinction  between  Hebraism  and  Hellenism  is  totally  misleading, 


V 


344  THE  BIBLICAL  WORLD 

it  would  have  been  entirely  valid  had  he  used  the  term  Judaism 
instead  of  Hebraism.  Yet  though  the  confusion  on  the  part  of  the 
author  may  have  been  one  of  terms  rather  than  of  ideas,  we  are 
still  justified  in  reminding  ourselves  that  Arnold’s  distinction  by 
its  terminology  attributes  to  Hebraism  an  austerity  and  somber 
gloom  which  really  did  not  characterize  it. 


A  SACRIFICIAL  OFFERING  UPON  A  GREEK  ALTAR; 


' 


UNIVER9ITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBAN  A 


3  0112  0419 


6260 


